I just looked back at the OP...I didn't know you were the one who wrote it.

ooops.

Do you see my point, though? If you are arguing against the existence of the God of the Bible, then you should have said that. Instead, you referenced only a general "intelligent designer," who most certainly COULD be experimenting in a human-like way.

My answer to the point you intended to make, though, is in Message 61.

Here is the gist of it quoted here:

quote:The YEC paradigm doesn't assume that anything has "improved" in the way you are thinking. Instead, we see a massive, world-wide extinction (Noah's Flood) -- therefore, there are now fewer body plans whereas there used to be greater diversity.

There, that should get the discussion back on the track you intended it to be on. Sorry about the diversion.

quote:well, they indicate that the strata were formed sequentially. each new layer requires the every one below it to be entirely solid.

Well, I would tend to think that, at best, AUs make a case that at least two events occurred: one for the layers at the one angle and one for the layers at the other. I fail to see how AUs indicate that all the layers involved are sequential and that every lower layer must be entirely solid before another layer can be deposited on it.

Or have I misunderstood you?

--Jason

AbE: my topic-drift-o-meter is starting to go off...do you think we should start a new thread for this topic?

quote:The OP indicates that at least a human-like intelligence is at work and therefore actually supports the general notion of ID.

No, it is your assumption that "at least a human-like intelligence is at work." My words, if I were to write them, would be akin to "at most a human-like intelligence"

quote:It is true that the OP does not support the idea of an omniscient, omnipotent God (i.e., the Christian God). But the OP, as currently stated, is arguing against ID in general, not the Christian God in particular. Therefore, since the OP presents "evidence" that a human-like intelligence is at work while trying to disprove ID in general, the OP contradicts itself.

The "evidence" presented is that the design process (whatever it might be) is incremental (a trait exhibited by, but not exclusive to our own design techniques). This counters the notion of design by an omnipotent god. But it also goes further than this. A particular characteristic of the designs tell us much about the designer:

The designer has shown itself as indifferent to the potential plight of its designs with every product being expendable from the individual to entire species. All things pass and nothing but contingency can be found leading to our own species (which is precariously isolated as a monoculture - ideal conditions for yet another extinction).

So we have a toss-up between a conscious and unconscious designer, and there is no shortage of evidence showing the designer to have no conscience. This make it an ideal candidate to be an unconscious algorithm at work.

Incidentally, you strike me as being someone who might possibly be unaware of "genetic programming" - a branch of engineering which uses an accurate parallel of evolution by natural selection to generate designs without consciousness. Google "genetic programming" it if you doubt it works.

Well, I would tend to think that, at best, AUs make a case that at least two events occurred: one for the layers at the one angle and one for the layers at the other. I fail to see how AUs indicate that all the layers involved are sequential and that every lower layer must be entirely solid before another layer can be deposited on it.

Or have I misunderstood you?

well, it requires a bit of inductive logic. extrapolate it another step.

if we have an angular section, under a flat section, every layer below the flat section had to have been formed before. so they had to be solid, then upturned, then a new layer formed on top.

so if we have more than one of these, and we do, and they happen in different layers, and they do... what does it mean? say we have layers a, b, and c. now, in on place, we have an uncomformity between a and b. so b had to be later than a. now suppose we have another unconformity elsewhere between b and c. so not only does c had to have been formed after b, but after a as well by the commutative proprety.

considering the vast amount of angular unconformities we have occuring at so very many different locations in the geologic column, it stands to reason that the layers were laid down sequentially.

I realize I'm late to the party on this, but I just read through this whole thread and wanted to add my 2 cents on some of the first posts reagrding sexes.

I guess one has to first define what one means by sexes. Yes there are in many cases only two sexes if you define sex by gamete size. Big gametes = girls, small = boys. However, if you look at the body of the organism, then there are many examples of multiple sexes. There are cases in fish (eg. swordtails for all you aquarists) that have males and females, with the males being smaller, but the females can also become males later in life and thus become large males.

There is also fish in the San Francisco bay that has two males, one large one and a small one.

Creationism requires religious faith, evolution "requires" an acceptance based on a wealth of evidence (Mark) "which is missing". Evolution creates hypothesis first and is desperately attempting to fit in the missing evidence. No wonder they are angry when they are questioned.

Creationism requires religious faith, evolution "requires" an acceptance based on a wealth of evidence (Mark) "which is missing". Evolution creates hypothesis first and is desperately attempting to fit in the missing evidence. No wonder they are angry when they are questioned.

The evidence exists that support the hypothesis, that there is potentially more evidence to be found (or not) in no way detracts from the FACT that evolutionary theory is supported by multidisciplinary evidence. That's like saying gravitational theory is on shaky ground because we don't know what causes the force itself.

I'm not sure what you hoped to achieve by posting rhetoric, to help convince yourself, perhaps? Can you tell me what evidence palaeontology brings to evolutionary theory? If not, then there really isn't much point engaging with someone who can't say what evidence exists, rather than what doesn't.

Mark

This message has been edited by mark24, 03-03-2006 02:34 PM

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

Protein sysnthesis has been quoted as evidence for evolution. Amino acids don ot form peptide bonds spontaneously. In order to make a protein whichis biologically active, the amino acid sequence must be exact. You form one peptide with 2 amino acids and to add the 3rd amino acid, you must protect the active group. Then add teh next amino acid. This goes on and on. This is how complex laboratory synthesis of peptide is. There ought ot be preformed structural and functional preformed proteins in the cell. This does no happen spontaneously.

In order to make a protein whichis biologically active, the amino acid sequence must be exact.

Hrm, I can't help but think I've rebutted this claim of yours before. Nonetheless:

quote:Functional sequences are not so rare and isolated. Experiments show that roughly 1 in 1011 of all random-sequence proteins have ATP-binding activity (Keefe and Szostak 2001), and theoretical work by H. P. Yockey (1992, 326-330) shows that at this density all functional sequences are connected by single amino acid changes. Furthermore, there are several kinds of mutations that change multiple amino acids at once.